Univ. of Rochester President, Joel Seligman/Strong Hospital CEO, Mac Evarts--
22 July 2005

Michael Caputo: What do you "Need to Know"?
How about the way the university of Rochester plans to boost
the economy during a week when we learned about layoffs at
Kodak?-
We spoke with the university's new president and the C.E.O. of
its medical center to learn about the U of R's push for new
jobs also, we look at story telling through independent film,
and we update the Kodak situation.-
Stay here for "Need to Know."-
[captioning made possible by the U.S. department of education]-

Rochester's newsmagazine since 1997, this is "Need to
Know."-
-
MC: Thanks for joining us.-
I'm Michael Caputo.
This past week we came face to face with the glaring need for
new jobs.-
Eastman Kodak announced another round of layoffs, cuts that
figure to hurt our job base.-
It's going to likely leave the University of Rochester and its
medical center as the leading employer in the region.-
The university's top leadership wants to do more for the
economy, become an incubator for new businesses, and the
university and its medical center is reaching out to
biotechnology, thinking that's an avenue worth taking, but it
is not easy.-
Stem cell research, for example, is not being embraced in New
York as it is in other places.-
Startup money, venture Capital funding is scarce here, and so
investors from other places may lure away good ideas.-
Earlier this week, we visited the university campus and sat
down with the top leadership at the university, its new
president, Joel Seligman, and medical center C.E.O. Mac Evarts.
They talked about the drive for economic development and about the hurdles to clear.-
We pick up the conversation with Seligman explaining how an
institution for higher learning can balance its first
responsibility with a drive to improve the local economy.-
-
Joel Seligman: Primary mission is education.-
Research, teaching, scholarships.-
But as part of that, we, you know, currently have 16,000
employees, over 8,000 students.-
We're interwoven into the community in a very fundamental way.-
When you look at projects -- let me give you an illustration
like Brooks Landing, which was literally right across the
river, separated just by a pedestrian walkway.-
If that thrives, it will bring to our immediate vicinity, you
know, a new hotel, a new restaurant, new retail.-
This is a benefit to us, as well as to brooks landing.-
It's an area where developing specific real estate is obviously
not our primary goal, but it's one
that matters to us.-
-
MC: Let me ask you about funding fueling any growth that the
medical center needs to have, the university needs to have.-
I was looking at the national institutes of health, and U of R does
very, very well, in the top 100, right in the middle of the
pack for New York state, 151.5 million in 2004 in grants from
the N.I.H.-
Is that a place where you will no longer be able to tax because
you've reached the limit?-
I hear that funding is flat or going lower.-
-
Mac Evarts: NIH funding has flattened out.-
But we think we have researchers who are high-caliber and
high-quality, and they will continue to be funded because their
research merits it.-
So our challenge is to make sure we're competitive on this
level, and we will be, and we have been, and our growth
patterns continue to grow.-
In other words, our research, and we've looked at this year
very carefully, and we're still ahead of the curve.-
We're ahead of the percentage increase in the N.I.H. funding.-
-
MC: How do you do that?-
How do you stay competitive?-
-
ME: It gets back to what the president said.-
We have a great environment here.-
We recruit very special individuals here.-
We expect, we set bars for them as far as their
performance.-
We expect to be funded, we expect them to be at the cutting
edge in what they're doing.-
In research, that pays off by additional external funding.-
-
JS: To add to what Dr. Evarts said, the medical center deserves
a great deal of credit also for focusing on what programs did to
emphasize.-
Let me give you an illustration.-
Currently there are initiatives to address topics such as neuro
science.-
This is important in terms of medicine.-
It's important because of the extraordinary caliber of
scientists we have on both sides of our campus, not only the
medical center, but what we call the river campus, as well.-
It provides an opportunity for collaboration.-
You really have breakthrough research that will be of benefit not
only to people in the Rochester area, but nationally.-
That kind of leadership, which the medical center has provided
something that's truly extraordinary.-
It's what a great research university can do, not just for the
community, but more broadly, and it is a combination, as Dr.
Evarts so aptly said, not really gleaning N.I.H. funding, but outstanding
Recruitment of top-notch scientists and focusing on what should our
priorities be.-
-
MC: Do you guys look for other sources of funding?-
Give me one or two -- which is the new stone you might be
unturning?-
What's a new stone you might be looking at?-
-
JS: We certainly have received a great deal of support from
other foundations, often private foundations.-
There are other federal agencies such as the national science
foundation.-
Sometimes there are specific programs funded by the federal
government or the state that are of consequence.-
There's been some help gven to not just the University of
Rochester, but many universities in recent years outside of the
N.I.H. budget.-
We're also moving ultimately towards the Capital campaign, and
the Capital campaign will be one where private donors, whether
institutional or live human beings can be of tremendous
consequence in strengthening this university.-
-
ME: And we also look, along with what the president said, we
look for a relationship with the corporate world as far as --
some sources of funding or some partnering research endeavors,
which serves both purposes.-
-
MC: Well, and since you brought that up, I might as well bring
up the Johnson & Johnson situation, which looks like a win-win
for everybody.-
They're going to help with some seed money for startup
ventures.-
There are critics who say there's a problem, it's going to be a
Big conflict of interest.-
What do you say to those?-
-
ME: Well, we are very careful about the conflict of interest.-
In other words, we try to make absolutely certain, and our
investigators are well aware of the fact that they have to have
the investigation be pure and not manipulated by the
companies.-
They understand that we won't enter any relationship.-
If they don't understand that, it's pretty straight forward.-
This is something a major academic health center has to do and
does well.-
-
JS: Conflicts of interest are a very serious issue, and it's one
where you have to have a vigilant risk management system.-
You have to have a appropriate compliance systems.-
So far in my review of what occurs both in the medical center
and elsewhere, we look to be pretty safe, pretty effective in
how we do this.-
But it's an area where you can never relax your guard, that the key
is how do we produce great medicine, great scholarships.-
The reality is we all wear many hats, and we have to be careful
we have the checks and balance system in place so we're wearing
the right hat at the right time.-
-
MC: I want to bring up stem cell research, because I think it's
such a place for developing, you know, developing jobs, but
California voters have said $3 billion, we're going to create
an institute.-
New Jersey is going to create an institute, $380 million.-
New York is not there.-
Do you think that ham strings what we can do here?-
-
JS: Yes, and this is an area where the state of New York has the
opportunity to do a lot better.-
We're falling behind.-
I mean, it's not just California and New Jersey.-
There are other states, most recently Illinois.-
-
MC: And Connecticut, I think, too.-
-
JS: And you're just focusing on the continental United States.-
In various European institutions, they've been aggressive, as
well.-
If we want to continue to provide the finest education, the
finest research, to be able to create medical breakthroughs
that are of consequence to our region and our state, as well as
to help in the development of new knowledge, be handicapped in
stem cell research, it's a disadvantage we can't afford.-
I'm looking forward over time to working with my fellow
university presidents to address how we can play a part in
encouraging the legislature to take another hard look at this
issue.-
This is a true priority, not just for the University of
Rochester, but for the state of New York.-
-
MC: Politics is enormous.-
I mean, it approaches some of the other social arguments that
we see in this nation.-
How do you get by it, Dr. Evarts?
-
ME: Well, first of all, I think people need to understand that
this is regenerative medicine and that what you're looking for
is how eventually to save lives or improve the quality of
life.-
The potential of this is enormous.-
It is the greatest potential discovery, if you will, or series
of discoveries that will emanate from this of anything that
I've seen in my career, and that spans a long time.-
So basically, this is tremendous potential.-
The second thing is that it has major economic impacts, so you
have two points to this.-
One is the good that you can do that will arise from this
investigation, you're saving life, you're improving the quality
of life, and some diseases that are absolutely costly to this
country.-
So in the long term, it will have an economic effect from that
alone, the second economic effect it will have is simply
creating new businesses, new jobs, new things.
-
MC: Do you just continue to bring that up when you get that
argument?-
-
ME: We've been very proactive in this region.-
The University of Rochester has been very proactive about this,
trying to get it out of the emotional context and bring it back
to talking about saving life, providing life, providing
economic development.-
This is a real threat to us at this very moment, if you will.-
Several of our key stem cell researchers being recruited,
either to California or New Jersey, if we lose them, we lose an
investment of several millions of dollars that we've made
already in this arena.-
-
JS: Ultimately, the ability, as Dr. Evarts said, to cure
terrible diseases is the most important reason of proceeding
with this.-
I've been struck in conversations with pro-life members of
congress how often they've said this is different than
abortion.-
This is one where I can understand how I can both support stem
cell research and not compromise my basic philosophy with
respect to abortion.-
And often, as you talk, you become aware of how terrible the
incidence of diseases that are potentially manageable or
addressable through stem cell research has been in terms of the
human experience of members of congress and elsewhere.-
-

ME: Some of the same issues were really raised way back when we
first started talking about organ donation.-
We had some of the same kind of conversations.-
Then there was a great deal of discussion that occurred with in
vitro fertilization.-
And you can see how we've progressed.-

Say we didn't have organs or in vitro fertilization.-
So you can see how this progress has been made by taking a very
rational view of this and looking at the benefits from such
kind of research.-
-
MC: Let me change the subject.-
The New York state Senate held hearings I think early last year
on biotech job growth and said that it revealed that
universities in this state demand far too stringent
intellectual property rights agreements, and said that M.I.T.
is more liberal and that they will -- as long as you keep the
jobs here, everything else is open.-
Would you agree with that statement, president Seligman, and
should there be a change?-
-
JS: I think we're reviewing a lot of processes at the
university.-
I've been impressed by some of the job growth that's occurred
so far with respect to spinoffs.-
I think we can go a lot further, and we're going to examine it
in detail.-
I'm not in the business of being a cheerleader for M.I.T., but
it's a great school.-
I will say, though, that we clearly want the most vibrant
economy and one in which the potential for the value added, the
university can provide in leading areas of medicine, heart
science, of engineering, for example, can be fully
appreciated.-
-
MC: So you think the criticism is valid on some level?-
-
JS: I'm not willing to subscribe to that.-
I'm willing to say we're taking a hard look at all sides of
this.-
-
MC: You want to put an emphasis on economic development here,
but again, venture Capital also needs to be a part of this,
that's outside of what you do, but I keep hearing time and
again that in upstate New York there isn't any venture Capital,
nothing at all for startup companies.-
Does that dissuade you from -- is that a deterrent, or does it
disappoint you, president Seligman?-

JS: There is some, and there will be more venture Capitalists as they see opportunities.-
The key is if balancing conflicts of interest, the scientists
can generate jobs through startups, the money will come.-
What is hard is the superior ideas, it's hard, if you will, is
the breakthrough concepts.-
If you can develop those, the money will come.-
-
MC: University president Joe Seligman and medical center C.E.A.
Mac Evarts.-
We want to know your feedback on this interview.-
Give it to us two ways, by emails at needtoknow at wxxi.org.-
Or call us at 258-0250.-

Michael Caputo: There are a number of ways that we communicate, some are as
young as the printing press or as young as the internet.-
Some are part of popular culture like film.-
Many would argue that, when it comes to film independent film making is the medium's
best example of story telling.-
When you think independent, you think of Sundance or
documentaries by the likes of Michael Moore. In Rochester, you
think of the Little Theatre.-
Until last month, it was Bill Coppard, a businessman who got bit by the film-making bug
And eventually bought a quirky movie theater, and under his watch, it
expanded.-
But the goal is always to show movies that told stories.-
We interviewed Mr. Coppard at the Little Theatre early this
week to kick off a series on "Need to Know."-
We're calling it "How We Communicate."-
Next week, we'll have a look at communicating through the
written word and the electronic media.-
But first, we asked bill Coppard about film making, and we
Started by bringing the 1907's, the watershed year, Martin Scorsese,
Roman Polanski, and Francis Ford Coppola were riding high, then came
"Jaws" and "Star Wars", and then came the blockbuster.-
We asked him how it changed film.-
-
Bill Coppard: I think it's a totally different form of entertainment.-
I think people sometimes blur the two.-
Just like there's all different kinds of art, there's all different kinds of films.-
There's films that are designed not necessarily to tell a
story, but to entertain an audience.-
Independent films, documentaries, and foreign films many times have a message,
and the message is contained within the film.-
That is important aspect of this film, although it does tell a
story, but it's usually based on the directors' or the writers'
personal experience or personal passions.-
-
MC: It wasn't always that way.-
The biggest -- you know, "Gone With the Wind" told the story of who we were
you know, the big-budget movies of the past told stories of who
we were.-
When did that break happen, and why did that break happen?-
-
BC: Well, I think that, you know, Hollywood is quick to respond
to box office successes.-
And when they see a film like "star wars" generating half a
billion dollars in box office revenues worldwide, they say
those are the kind of films that we want to make, because those
are the kind of films that make money.-
So I think it was a conscience effort on Hollywood's bottom
line and not aesthetic.-

MC: I suppose you can appreciate a little bit of that.-
-
BC: You know, I can appreciate it.-
I find the difficult part is when the studios have opened
specialty divisions which handle the independent films, and
they tend to handle those films the same way they would a
Hollywood blockbuster, with the same kind of advertising, the
same kind of an approach to an audience, and I think that's
where there's a mistake.-
-
MC: Sundance, that started, I think, to give rise to story
tellers.-
Has it changed?-
-
BC: Well, it has.-
You know, it's becoming immensely popular film festival.-
It's very difficult to attend.-
I was at Sundance with a movie in 1989, still called the U.S.A.
film festival then, and the next year it changed to Sundance.-
And you could walk into any restaurant and, you know, downtown
without a reservation and get a table.-
Hotel rooms were available.-
And it was relatively inexpensive if you had to pay to get a
festival pass.-
Today, passes are very expensive, hotel rooms are hard to get,
and I'm sure reservations are hard to get.-
So it's become much more popular with the industry.-
Industry always goes there and looks for the next independent
that's going to break through.-
They're not looking sometimes necessarily for the film.-
They're looking for the director or they're looking for the
star, because they want to take that director and take that
star and bring them to Hollywood and make Hollywood films with
that director.-
They don't want to keep him independent.-
-
MC: Has Sundance lost its way, or is it more the people who use
Sundance now are just blazing this other trail?-
-
BC: Well, there's always been a real debate about that.-
Robert Redford, has he lost his way, has he too commercial?-
I don't think so.-
I think the whole industry has gone in a different direction,
and certainly Sundance is part of the industry, but they still
showcase the small, independent films.-
They show films that are made, you know, digitally and not on
film, and I think that they give the independent filmmaker a
low-budget filmmaker, and first-time filmmaker an opportunity
to be part of a prestigious festival and find an audience.-
-
MC: You said the last 10 years changed.-
Describe for me how it's changed.-
-
BC: Well, I think how it's changed, there used to be true
independent distributors.-
They were not part of the studio system.-
Many of those have gone away, or the films that they are able
to obtain are very, very small films, and they don't have the
financial resources to compete with the pseudo independents.-
And I think that's the real difference.-
You know, they'll pick up a film, it's a good, small film, but
to open the film in New York cost a minimum of $70,000, and
they just don't have the resources to compete with the
Hollywood independents.-
-
MC: So we have breaks within the independent line.-
-
BC: Absolutely.-
And now it's going to go through a transition.-
You're going to find more small companies emerging.-
There's going to be a company that's going to pick up "my big
fat Greek wedding" and become a success so they can buy other
films and use that money to hopefully perpetuate the business.-
-
MC: Does film tell all story tellers those views, the written
word, you know, other forms?-
How does film teach us about telling our stories?-
-
BC: Well, I think one thing about film is, and I think it's very
important as you see it with an audience.-
If you sit and read a book on I Sunday afternoon, you're
experiencing it yourself and you react to what's on the written
page.-
But film allows you, through an audience, to express yourself
with other people.-
People laugh at certain parts of the film or they'll cry at
certain parts of the film or they'll walk out of the theater
and discuss what they've seen, so it's very much a group
function as opposed to a one-on-one.-
And I think that's really important.-
I think that's important that, you know, documentaries and
independent films are seen in a movie theater, not necessarily
in the comfort of your home.-
-
MC: Really?-
You really think that?-
-
BC: I believe that.-
I can see when I used to the little every Friday night for
20-some years the reactions of audiences when they came out of
a film and how they were moved by certain films that show
here.-
-
MC: Let me give you one last question, if I could.-
It's probably the most stock question of all.-
The future of film, its ability to tell stories, put it in that
context, where does it lie in the years ahead?-
-
BC: I think the exciting thing about film right now is because of digital.-
More people can make films.
But they have to be good films.-
-
MC: Youll be ubiquitous like the books soon- everybody writes
And nobody reads.
-
BC: Everybody knows how to technically make a film. The purists are going to say:
it doesn't look like 35 millimeter or 70 millimeter, it
doesn't, but it looks pretty good, the sound is good, and it's
very easy to edit.-
SO, technically you can come up with a great product.-
The secret is you have to be able to tell a story.-
You have to be able to write.-
You have to be able to direct, and you have to be able to act
And you can't pass up those necessary qualities to make a good
film.-
-
MC: Bill Coppard at the Little Theatre earlier this week.-
Now here's Julie Philipp and Ellen rosen with the
business section.-

Julie Philipp: Joining us in studio is Ellen Rosen, the business editor for
the Democrat and chronicle.-
Hi, Ellen.-
Nice to see you.-
Lately we've been hearing so much positive news coming out of
Eastman Kodak as they transform to digital, but that was not
the case this week.-
-
Ellen Rosen: No, this week Kodak came out with second quarter earnings.-
For the third straight quarter, Kodak posted a loss.-
This time the loss was largely due to restructuring charges.-
They say they need to eliminate another 10,000 jobs by the end
of 2007.-
Even if you take those restructuring charges out, they still
were about 30 cents a share less than what wall street was expecting
them to earn.-
-
JP: A lot of headlines said those job cuts were a surprise, but
were they?-
-
ER: Perhaps the timing.-
Antonio Perez, when he took over in June, said he was going to
be very aggressive about positioning the company where it
needed to be to get to the edge of the digital world that they want to be in.-
-
JP: Which moves fast.-
-
ER: Products need to come to market quickly, be constantly
updated and innovated.-
Basically Kodak is wrapping up film production.-
Film sales are slideing much more quickly than the company
expected.-
It's impacting Kodak and all of it'll competitors.-
As a matter of fact, Perez said on a conference call that film
sales have peaked in China, which was once supposed to be
such a promising market.
-
JP: Do we know where this is going to leave Kodak's presence in
Rochester?-
Kodak employees, Kodak facilities.-
-
ER: Well, we don't really know, but we can put forth some guesses.
Kodak said in the filing that they will be reducing from
something like 2.9 billion down to 1 billion.
So expect about two-thirds of the machinery and other items of worth will
Disappear by 2007.
We also know of those 10,000 job cuts, 7,000 are supposed to be
in manufacturing.-
Kodak park is the largest manufacturing site, and we make a lot
of film there.-
-
JP: Can we see Kodak now getting out of traditional film
completely?-
-
ER: Well, that seems to be the way.-
Kodak has always said that was the way it was going.-
But it's anybody's guess as to how long it was going to take.-
As a matter of fact, they said they're going to stop issues
earnings guidance where the market is so volatile where film
is concerned.-
-
JP: Where are are the traditional jobs at Kodak?-
-
ER: Well, there are digital jobs.-
They're largely in (Research & Development)
Kodak doesn't manufacture its own things anymore, but there are
people that are designing, developing, and working on projects here.-
Some of that's done in Rochester.-
-
JP: And the rest is spread out?-
-
ER: All spread out, around the world.-
-
JP: J.P. Morgan, Chase and Paychex had some news this week.-
-
ER: Yes, J.P. Morgan announced some consolidations.
They are going to cut 300 jobs out of their downtown
offices, people that have been working in a certain area whether
they consolidated with another bank, they really don't need the jobs,
so they're trimming the services there.-
And Paychex went to get approval for some tax breaks for the
property attempt to take over on saw grass.-
And basically, they said they're going to add about 480 jobs
there by the time they're done.-
-
JP: So what's the balance?-
We see some companies cutting, some companies adding.-
What's the big picture here.-

ER: Well, it's a step forward, a step backward.-
This is how the economy's going to go for a while.-
Basically we had a story in Sunday's paper.-
Economists, when you talk to them before the Kodak lapse,
Were really optimistic that we were perhaps turning a corner.-
They weren't looking to Kodak for the big cuts.-
It's kinds of a mixed bag.-
-
JP: The June unemployment rate was announced.-
-
ER: It's 4.7%, down from a year ago in June, but up from the
month before.-
That's a mixed bag, too, because our labor pool continues to
Shrink actually
There's fewer people that are out there looking for work, and
that's making it difficult for some employers to find the
people that they need.-
-
JP: Thanks so much, Ellen.-
That's the business section.-
See you next week.-
-
Michael Caputo: And when we see you next week, we will continue our series
on "How We Communicate" by talking to an author about the
changing face of publishing and a critic of broadcast news.-
We'll see you then.-
[captioning made possible by the U.S. department of education]-
Captioned by the-
National Captioning Institute-
--www.ncicap.org---